~ …give that you may live, for to withhold is to perish. (Adapted from Kahlil Gibran)

Monthly Archives: August 2006

Again, some interesting conversations going on in the comments section of the Smell the Pansies blog entry, as well as previous conversations. As I was reading some of the comments, I remembered that Jim over at Open Board Blog is an school board member and an open source advocate. In fact, many folks I know are open source advocates…but that does not make them free software advocates. In fact, I’d bet that most define “free” in “free and open source software (FOSS)” as $0 cost to the end user. That’s how I’ve always defined it, but now I see that “free” refers to principles of freedom, not cost.

Personally speaking, I’m not sure if I’m either or perhaps a little of both. I do know in my position as a school board member I’m mostly interested in freeing our K-8 public school district from the long-term financial, legal and practical constraints of proprietary software and it’s onerous licensing. The obvious answer to me is to use more ‘free’ or ‘open source’ software, whatever title you want to give it. If you can also use it as an educational tool to teach kids about programming and hacking, all the better. But my fundamental goal is to free ourselves of needless restraints and spend less money. I give Richard Stallman the credit for making this choice possible for us.Source: Are You Strident Enough?

In that one sentence (italics), Jim has captured my understanding of FOSS software. That’s exactly what I want to see happen in schools. We just don’t have the money to keep pouring down the throats of big business. Yet, a side-effect of FOSS in schools is that we free ourselves. This seems to go in opposition to what Peter Rock (GNUosphere) writes in the comments:

Open source does not include the message of freedom. However, free software includes the message of open source.

I disagree…it seems that free, open source software carries the message forward of freedom, something that we recognize. I certainly did not get the feeling of euphoria, of being FREE, FREE AT LAST! of switching from proprietary to open source at home. Or put another way, from impractical, expensive licenses of Windows OS to practical applications of open source at home. The excitement of being free didn’t come from not having to pay money–a fringe benefit–but from having a completely different set of options that enabled me to be creative, innovative with tools that had no penalty of illegal use hanging over them.

As I reflect on this, I do find myself agreeing with the powerful effects of being free using GNU/Linux, but wishing for the more practical aspects of open source and proprietary software co-existing. I’m not yet willing to forego proprietary solutions. Is leaving society behind, going off into the wilderness to experience freedom FROM oppression, trying to exercise the freedom TO do what is appropriate…is that an extreme?

Tom Hoffman asks, “Do you read my blogs?” Well, yes, but I lacked the schema to understand it. I’m not sure I understand it even now. That’s why I’ve written about this here…because there was/is a gap in my understanding, and I wanted to rely on my personal learning network to help me “get it.” Tom writes the following in his blog entry:

While this K-12 Open Technologies approach has the potential to help adoption of open standards, I think it does it at the expense of the open source software and the free software movement. They should not co-opt the open source name for their own purposes, or dilute its meaning in the minds of educators. If they want to promote free and open source software, they should simply do so. If they want to promote an open standard, they should do so. Just don’t use the name of some wealthy and prominent organizations to re-frame and water down the meaning open source software in education.

According to CoSN’s April 2005 Primer on Open Technologies in K-12, open technologies and standards:

•Allow educators to pick one or more standards-compliant applications and know that they will all work together without a lot of customization;

•Permit school districts to mix and match proprietary software with open source applications; and

•Enable the sharing of data between applications, which eliminates redundant data entry and increases data integrity, security and privacy of information.

What I don’t understand is objections to this Open Technologies. As an educator, why do you object? In reading the descriptions of the open technologies term, I don’t see any watering down…and the potential for K-12 schools is there to realize the by-product other open source users stumble over when they make a commitment to using open source software–Freedom.

One of my favorite books–and my daughter’s, too, a fact I take credit for since I introduced her to it–is Where the Red Fern Grows. by Wilson Rawls. I remember reading it several times as I was growing up. It was my favorite because it involved: 1) Dogs; 2) Hunting; 3) Boy protagonist; 4) Getting out of school; 5) Perseverance of a boy chopping a big tree down; and 6) Blood and guts. In regards to hunting, I’ve been trying to “tree a ‘coon” and regretably, I have no able four-footed assistants with me, and the edge of my axe is dull.

However, I’ve been trying to better understand something, and that’s what this blog is for…exploring a concept.

A week or so ago, Steve H. wrote to Richard Stallman (you’ll need VLC Media Player to view the video that will pop up in OGG format when you click his name; thanks to Leigh at TALO) and asked him to be a guest on the K12OpenSource Webcast. Since I’ve read Stallman’s work on trusted/treacherous computing, I was excited about the kinds of ideas and conversations that he would bring to the table. But, I understand now that my excitement was misplaced. It was misplaced because Stallman is a heretic (or a visionary), a maverick (or a prophet) advocating for a point of view that few in K-12 education might approve, or even be willing to identify with. Let’s see if you agree with this opinion of Stallman’s perspective.

Unrated

He makes a few interesting points in email, points that I didn’t really understand and failed to make time to research properly (personal illness, time, etc). Peter ( GNUosphere) has been great in explaining some of these points, since when I do read about these items, I’m a bit confused. Consider this point Stallman made after he looked at the K12OpenSource.com wiki:

As a first step, how about looking at uses of “Linux” in the site and determining which of them really refer to Linux, the kernel, and which of them really refer to GNU/Linux, the complete usable system? You could then make each reference correct. Likewise, you could look at each penguin and decide whether you should have a gnu next to it. In real life computers, other than embedded systems, a penguin can’t live without a gnu.

As for “open source” vs “free software”, those refer to two different philosophies. So it is a matter of what position you would like to champion. I cannot tell you what views to profess, but I would like to convince you to support the views of free software. If you do, then I would ask you to wave our banner — which is the term “free software”.

As I read this, I was confused by Stallman’s approach. Did he want to get his message out to a bigger audience, or, taken another way, did I want to waste my time with someone who was going to define every single term used on a web site to the point that we couldn’t get to the read meat of a webcast interview? And, then, what was even more irritating was this exchange regarding the use of Skype:

If you invite the public to use Skype or Gizmo to listen to your show, what is the effect? You’re saying, “Please use non-free software!” That doesn’t help the cause. Just the opposite. So how about playing with Ekiga and WengoPhone? And if they don’t have all the features you want, how about helping to encourage people to add what’s missing? That’s the way to contribute to our community.

In response to the question of doing a Skypecast, I wrote the following to him: The “Skypecast” is done in parallel with the interview, and is a method of allowing many people to listen into the conversation real-time, and then when appropriate also indicate that they want to ask a question–at which time, they can be individually given voice capability and become a part of the conversation. His response?

I couldn’t possibly do that.

The reason I didn’t get was WHY he couldn’t do that. Or, I got it but I didn’t GET IT. It didn’t become obvious until he explained more about his views regarding free software banner. It is a banner that Lessig picked up in his presentation at WikiMania 2006 and helped me understand a bit better. So, even as I advocate for open source, I’m really advocating for FREE SOFTWARE. But, I still didn’t “get it” until I read this:

As one person put it, “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.Source: Free Software Foundation

As an open source advocate, Freespire then is a nice solution because it allows the use of non-free software. But, non-free software is a social problem…that has to be overcome. While this may seem incredibly obvious to my readers, it’s not to me. It makes me question the distinctions made between open source software and open technologies. So, when my editor says to me, “People really need a good clear overview and explanation for what Open Source is and what Open Technologies mean,” she’s not understanding that they are one and the same. The distinction is between open source and free software.

This really is splitting hairs for an educator. The bottom line for an educator is, “I want it to work when I need it, not make a statement about injustice and oppression.” But, is this really the point? I would bet that if you’re a bloggin’ teacher, you’re a free software advocate, even more than an open source advocate. But, if you don’t blog, then you’re more inclined to be an open source advocate. Let’s make this an informal poll…leave a comment and declare yourself!

This all causes me to consider my transformation category of this blog. Free software is about transforming society, while open source is about getting things to work. . .as the FSF acknowledges, it’s a more practical consideration. This practicality in K-12 education is the same kind of practicality that pushes teachers to illegally photocopy class sets of books for their students or install multiple copies of software on computers in a grade level, or when we buy stuff out of our own pocket…because we just want it to work to the benefit of our children, and, of course, ourselves. So, the free software movement–a social movement–doesn’t seem like that far a stretch from where we are at as teachers. But, it is.

The problem is that if one chooses free software, one is essentially saying, “I’m not going to use proprietary, non-free tools at all, even if they are of great benefit. Life’s too short for me to NOT use those tools and I only have these kids for a year.” And, we have no choice over the tools that are put in our schools–except to NOT use them. Like Stallman saying he couldn’t possibly do the interview over Skype because it would send the wrong message.

What if we said to our principals, our technology directors, our superintendents, I’m not going to use that computer because it’s running non-free software on it. I’m not going to give that student assessment because it’s running on Pearson’s non-free system that I can’t contribute to. I’m not going to use that curriculum because it’s a closed, non-free (not cost, but concept). The answer is obvious. Teachers would be ostracized, fired, asked to leave in the million ways possible.

You have to admire someone who sticks to their beliefs–and don’t get me wrong, I do–in education today! Then, of course, the consequences of such an action in K-12 education would be tremendous. Could you see ed-tech leaders like Jim Hirsch (speaking to the idea of CoSN’s K-12 Open Technologies) advocating free software? Or even David Thornburg who’s not afraid to share that “Inspiration” will be available for Linux? Free software says these guys have not gone far enough.

It’s almost the same kind of expectation we have for teachers now, to abandon Read Only web for the Read/Write web. It’s the idea that they will unite and throw off the shackles of an oppressive system, even as the overseer stands there with a whip and a pistol. Imagine if we, as educators, re-wrote this story:

That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.

What if we said, that teachers should have the freedom to look at curriculum in a wiki, help improve it for faster and better development. This means that teachers could improve the curriculum, but that they would lack the freedom to…what? This is the idea I’m unsure of. I’m beating around the bush because it’s dark, and I’m not sure where the bush is. Is it that teachers wouldn’t have the freedom to innovate with the curriculum, that they deserve the freedom to experiment?

So, from a PRACTICAL approach–or, Open Source–Stallman’s decision to say he couldn’t possibly use Skype or other non-free software is a pain in the rear. It’s a pain because it means that it will be difficult to record a conversation as to how “free software” concepts apply to K-12 education and the idea of free culture. It’s a pain because I just wanted the conversation in a way lots of folks could jump in on (e.g. Skypecast), and make it easy to share with others (e.g. podcast).

From a SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION point of view, Stallman is right on target for avoiding use of non-free tools to get his message out. His silence becomes the message. The problem is, if there’s anybody else like me out there, that silence means that silence may be all we hear. I want the ‘coon, and if that means chopping the tree down, then so be it. If we all chop the trees down with our coon hunting, eventually there won’t be enough trees. So be it…right?

Overcoming despair, fear, and oppression…I’m not sure what attracts me to these themes, but they certainly do attract me. It’s so easy to relax and say, “Hey, things are just great!” when in fact, they’re not. And, while one has to be careful that you don’t overindulge those feelings of despair, anger, helplessness, calling them out, acknowledging that they are present can be liberating.

Recently, Tom Hoffman had a post where he discussed some of the challenges we face as educators. Vicki Davis jumped in and shared THE big challenge–high stakes tests. Over the last few months, years even, I’ve certainly given a lot of lip service to “hating the test.” The constraint of high stakes testing, the culture of fear and paranoia–“Triple-check everyone to make sure they’re not cheating !”–that dominates our schools reminds me of Christian tales.

Maybe you know which story I mean. It’s the one where the Devil has possession of the World, it is within his power to do whatever he wants. But some day, all will be made right. Some day, we will all be free. Whatever your religious beliefs, spiritual perspective, this kind of story is attractive. It’s attractive because it is a promise that what is good will triumph over the daily challenges we face, that we will endure through the despair that threatens to restrict our creativity, enslave our spirit, and restrict us to a mundane existence.

That’s the beauty of being in educational technology. While the rest of the world fails, one group endures. From age to age, one administration to the next, there is one group that keeps the beacon of transformation burning bright. That’s us, the educational technology folks. When freedom comes, when at last good triumphs, how will we respond?

“Mandela made a grand, elegant, dignified exit from prison and it was very, very powerful for the world to see. But as I watched him walking down that dusty road, I wondered whether he was thinking about the last 27 years, whether he was angry all over again. Later, many years later, I had a chance to ask him. I said, ‘Come on, you were a great man, you invited your jailers to your inauguration, you put your pressures on the government. But tell me the truth. Weren’t you really angry all over again?’ And he said, ‘Yes, I was angry. And I was a little afraid. After all I’ve not been free in so long. But,’ he said, ‘when I felt that anger well up inside of me I realized that if I hated them after I got outside that gate then they would still have me.’ And he smiled and said, ‘I wanted to be free so I let it go.’ It was an astonishing moment in my life. It changed me.”Source: Bill Clinton’s Story on the Freeing of Nelson Mandela via I Can’t Say That!

Clarifying what our ‘customers’ needs,and expectations, as well as what they value, is one area where most of us could use some work. So, we need to ask what our customer values and if they are unclear, we need to probe and discuss, until we get to what they really value. Value is such a great topic and there is so much more to discuss.

Pete provides some examples…I see this as getting to the heart of an issue, cutting through all the baloney and truly understanding what’s really, bedrock, required for the benefit of the organization. The problem is that folks (including myself) aren’t transparent and open about this, no matter that they want to be.

Often, people are afraid of sharing exactly what they value because they lack trust in the relationship. Simply, they FEAR how they will be perceived, want to maneuver/manipulate the other person to minimize their own exposure while maximizing the other’s, and achieve their aims without the exercise of relationship-building.

I recently found myself in the position of overcoming that fear. In the past, in regards to a specific issue, I would have advocated what I thought was in the best interest of my department. However, at a team meeting, my team helped me realize that I was focused on specific needs of my group. The fact was, we needed to let responsibility for a certain project go, potentially giving up our significant investment in time, effort and funding to another division.

Up until this point, I found myself trying to craft an administrative procedure that would protect our department’s interests–using the “more projects you have, the more surety you have that you’ll be employed” philosophy–while cutting off the department that had the real authority, but none of the expertise to get the job done. In fact, that fear–that they wouldn’t be able to get the job done and all our efforts over the last year would be in vain–was the dominating one.

At the team meeting, with vigorous discussion of my team, I realized that I had a choice–continue to be fearful and try to retain control while seeming to give it up, OR, trust the organization and surrender control. I do not think I would have reached this decision on my own. My team actually helped me “see the light” as we argued back and forth. Robert Quinn (Building the Bridge as We Walk It), whose books I keep in front of me at home and work, shares it in this way:

Being transformational is a function of our ability to constantly engage that which we least want to engage, our own hypocrisy.

As I read those words, I realize that I was being hypocritical. I said I valued the service we provided to the organization so much that I didn’t want to give it up, but I doubted the ability of the organization to acknowledge the value of the service provided. Why? In my past experiences, I had come to not trust the organization to get the job done…so, my department did the job. Engaging my own hypocrisy, my fear, meant setting aside what my department had done for the organization, asking anew what was best for the organization and including others in the conversation. While I found I still had to affirm the “value” of what had been done by my department, I also had to realize that it was yesterday’s work.

Could I have reached this on my own? I’d like to think “Yes,” but a truer response would be that the conversation my team had with me was significant. This is a humbling experience, yet, frees me from my preconceptions, desires, fear to force a particular outcome. Instead, I have ONE simple goal. That is, answer this question as clearly as I can knowing what my department knows: Is the service being provided aligned to what the organization needs and is that need understood by all stakeholders? If not, what can I do to show the organization the truth about itself?

It was in one of those reports about that group fondly referred to as “The Youff” where they said that as a sixteen year old nowadays: “If you’re not online you don’t exist.” That is, if you’ve not got an online presence, a Bebo page, a MySpace account or a humble blog then don’t even attempt to pretend that you have anything worthwhile to say.Source: edu.blog

One of my favorite authors is Peter Drucker. I literally have a stack of books on my desk at the moment, and I keep coming back to two of Drucker’s books, The Effective Executive and Managing for Results. I’m not sure why, but my hands want to pick these two books up and hold them until my eyes read them. I suppose it’s because Drucker’s ideas are so easy to grasp and, in some cases, out of date…allowing me a slight superiority over the author. Foolish since time makes all men fools. Yet, I am captivated by the 4 walls of freedom that bound reality.

1) The executive’s time tends to belong to everybody else. This was a hard reality for me to accept when I first became an administrator 7 years ago. I was a lowly grant coordinator working with 235 teachers earning a master’s degee in C&I with IT specialization–entirely online–and over 120 administrators going through the program. My time was constrained by having to maintain contact with all of them. However, I came to love the opportunity to serve as a conduit for information, emotional support, and the organizer for the various grant related activities. But for those first few months, my time was not my own. I was plugged in 24 hours a day, and I wanted to make sure that I was there for everyone. I remember many a night staying up late working to check emails, answer questions…because questions teachers asked didn’t show up until after they ate dinner, put their kids to bed. It was exhilirating to be a hub of information, ideas, and support. In many ways, it was the most thrilling moment of my career…hard, tough, but exhilirating.

As a director, I spend my time in meetings, on the phone, or chained to my desk working on some mundane aspect of administrivia. But again, my time is not my own in the way I’d come to expect as a coordinator, or even, as a technology specialist. As a specialist, I had enormous freedom to develop workshops and content, implement it, reflect and revise, then try again. What tremendous opportunities for learning exist…everything has an application. In administration, I find myself working to accomplish goals through other people. Instead of being the tool, I am the tool-wielder. My tools are the wonderfully talented people that are on my team. I am fortunate to have them, but again, if I husband my time, I am denying them. Yet, for my own growth, I have to set time aside, jealously, like a father choosing to be alone, apart from the family.

2) Executives are forced to keep on “operating” unless they take positive action to change the reality in which they live and work. This is so true, a reality I discovered when I became a director. I’d walked into a poor situation where everyone else sought to define the nature of my organization. I worked long nights to meet the expectations set, but also, to build new expectations. In those early years, I strove not to be the primary mover, the agent of change evident in the quote, Define or be defined. While I was successful to a certain degree, I also have encountered the “organizational ceiling” that is defined in reality #3.

3) The third reality pushing the executive to ineffectiveness is that he is within an organization. That means he is effective only if and when other people make use of what he contributes. In my organization, there was a profound feud, a divide, between Curriculum and Instruction and the Technology Dept. The divide was there before I arrived, and the greatest challenge was living up to Helen Keller’s advice, I am only one, still I am one. I can not do everything, still I can do something. I will not refuse to do the something I can do. As an administrator, I have the benefit of a team of people…it intensifies the anger when others disdain the contribution of a talented team. In those instances I am reminded that one should not cast pearl before swine. So, within this environment, we have done something. It’s not as wonderful as I would like, but it is something…and it is a miracle to the people who benefited from the actions taken. Perhaps, it is worth remembering another of Helen’s quotes, Tyranny cannot defeat the power of ideas. The beauty of the Read/Write Web is that so many more people are exposed to your contributions, and can benefit from that work, even if those within the organization are caught up in the reality of the organization.

The real challenge for me as an administrator, for becoming effective within my organization, is when other people make use of what I have to contribute. So long as others are caught up in the immediate reality, they will be unable to see the picture. I have to try and help them get out of “the Cave.” It takes time to build a relationship and relationships don’t last when the administration changes quickly, and you have to start over again with somebody new…who may be on the same road out.

4) Finally, the executive is within an organization. What is inside is the immediate reality and what goes on outside is usually not even known firsthand. It is received through an organizational filter of reports, that is, in an already predigested and highly abstract form that imposes organizational criteria of relevance on the outside reality. This last reality is one that I think Drucker is wrong about. In the old days, this may have been true…but now we have the benefit of blogs, the emphasis on transparency, and administrators lack only the courage to speak.

That is, they have to be willing to tell the organization the truth about itself. This is challenging because we know the depth of commitment and effort people put into realizing–literally, making their vision a reality–their imagination, their conception of how things should be. And, sometimes, this effort is marred by other priorities beyond that of serving the people in the organization. For example, imagine a competing department that because it lacks the will or expertise to accomplish its own mission, decides to do what another department does. Instead of pursuing their particular mission, they compete against that of another department. While competition may work in business, in education, it is a poor idea…especially when superintendents are feuding.

I like to think of this as each “ranch” having its own hired guns, sending them out to battle. After awhile, one or both gunfighters figure out that this is a waste of time, but they are drawn together by tradition and repetition. Even after the ranch owners are gone, the gunfighters show up at high noon to fight. And if one doesn’t show, the other comes looking.

Increasing transparency enables the REAL story to get out about what is happening…it is because of the blog that I have something to say, in the manner I have to say it, that makes the difference for me…that helps me realize that I do matter, even in my meanest moments when I am in the corner…I’m reminded of Thoreau, a passage I didn’t understand until now:

…to live so…as to put to rout all that was not life…to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion.Source: Walden by Thoreau

In the end, persistence and integrity may win the day. But the sure sign of an administrator gone wrong is one who wraps himself in a blanket of ignorance and surety…and ignores the truth that is out there. I’ve seen it happen. Some embrace the criticism, others do not. Those that do not…well, they fail.

So, I like Drucker and what he has to say. Even if he’s off in regards to the computers, he’s gets a lot of points right. As I consider life as an executive–a knowledge worker–I’m reminded by a sermon on the radio of a truth I hadn’t considered in awhile.

You have to reach the end of self, give up that mistaken belief that you alone can make everything work the right way. For me, it is the fifth reality that Drucker didn’t discuss. As an executive, I have to surrender myself to the fact that I can’t do it alone, that my team can’t make it happen, no matter how good they are. That I have to have faith that there are forces at work that will win the day, even when all is lost.

As a teacher or professional learning facilitator, I would have balked at that faith.

Before I allowed myself to acknowledge my creativity, my particular brand, it burned in me…I carried it around like a hot brick, too dumb to slap it down, to dumb to know that I might be able to build with it, if only I could find others.

Creativity burns hot within those who opt not to take their inner songs with them to the grave. Whatever fuels creativity — passion, muse, spirit, spirits, magic, necessity, yearning, emotion — seems to be alive in some and dormant in others. But creativity alone does not yield quality fruit. It takes extreme effort and the willingness to risk baring one’s soul.

How is creativity burning in the hearts of our students, teachers, and administrators? And, is it only expressed in ways that are deemed acceptable to yesterday’s standards? Isn’t that so WRONG? Joe goes on to write:

What is going to be difficult for us is how to figure out the rest of future-ready for our students . . . if we as professionals allow our personal flames of creativity to flicker and fade.

I couldn’t agree more. In times when creativity among professionals seems like the last desirable option, when it is beaten down by those who say, “Do this MY way or it’s the highway for you,” creativity is an act of rebellion. Consider this idea in light of SKunkworks related post at Remote Access:

“a term used in engineering and technical fields to describe a group within an organization given a high degree of autonomy and unhampered by bureaucracy, tasked with working on advanced or secret projects.” via Clarence Fisher and Hugh MacLeod

Light the fires! It’s time to change our work environments and fan the flames of personal creativity.

The current “5 Things You Didn’t Know About Me” meme that has been making its way around lately has inspired me to begin a new meme that focuses on our processes as a bloggers. I truly believe that this can serve as a way for us all to reflect upon and improve our writing processes. The basic idea here is to write a short post that speaks to how you go about developing posts for your blog, then tag four or five other people you’d like to learn from. I suppose we could call this the “How Do You Write?” meme. So, if you’re up to it, then I would love to hear from some of my favorite edubloggers…Miguel, Wes, Doug, Vicki, and Jeff.

Hmm…this is a tough one, Brian. I’ll share this entry with you, but I think what might be useful is to reflect during the week as I write and post those one by one each day. What do you think? In the meantime, here’s what I first came up with:

While I’ve certainly written about WHY I blog, and write, I haven’t reflected on how I go about developing posts for my blog. This kind of question reminds me of William Zinsser’s book, On Writing Well. I remember laughing like heck when I was in my sophmore year in college (when I first read this passage). Here’s what caught my eye:

About ten years ago a school in Connecticut held “a day devoted to the arts,” and I was asked if I would come and talk about writing as a vocation. When I arrived I found that a second speaker had been invited–Dr. Brock (as I’ll call him), a surgeon who had recently begun to write and sold some stories to national magazines. He was going to talka bout writing as an avocation. That made us a panel, and we sat down to face a crowd…and the first question went to him. What was it like to be a writer? He said it was tremendous fun. Coming home from an arduous day at the hospital, he would go straight to his yellow pad and write his tensions away. The words just flowed. It was easy.

I then said that writing wasn’t easy and it wasn’t fun. It was hard and lonely, and the worlds seldom just flowed. Next Dr. Brock was asked if it was important to rewrite. Absolutely not, he said, “Let is all hang out,” and whatever form the sentences take will reflect the writer at his most natural. I then said that rewriting is the essence of writing.

If you want to know the rest of the story, you’ll have to read Zinsser’s On Writing Well. But in short, I tell you that for some, writing is easy, and for others, it’s hard as heck. Until I began my doctoral work, I didn’t realize how hard writing could be. Honestly, I had never encountered writing that challenged me, that forced me to “write outside my comfort zone,” and I failed…failed miserably at that kind of writing. I failed because I was miserable about lots of things, but mostly, about having to force my writing in a direction that just wasn’t me.

1) Writing flows from a moment captured by the voyager; I am he. Nanci Atwell shares that every experience in our lives is worth writing about. Everything. Even James Joyce found going poop (or “#2” as it goes in my house) something worth writing about in Ulysses, and he gave it epic proportions (personally, I hated everything Joyce wrote after The Portrait of An Artist as a Young Man). Once I begin to write, I’m caught up in a moment. I wrote about this before, about being in the Zone.

If you’re a writer, you know what I mean. You slip into the Zone, and hours can go by, and they pass unnoticed. You are so enraptured by the experience of writing that nothing else matters (ahh, if only exercising could be like that). I LOVE being in the Zone and when I’m there, writing isn’t difficult, hard, miserable or anything. It’s like tapping into a power source. I hate interruptions (“Dad, would you feed me now?”; “Honey, would you do something?”) when I’m in the Zone. I’m considering flicking a switch that turns on a red, flashing light. Another neat thing about being in the Zone is that I’m not hungry when I’m there…or thirsty or anything. All there is…is the Zone. If blogging isn’t good for anything else, or anyone else, it’s good for getting me in the Zone. It’s darn addictive.

That moment lasts forever. But what I haven’t told you is that the Zone is what determines what I write. What’s in the Zone is what makes me excited. Plop me in front of fancy artwork, I just don’t care. Show me architecture that’s stood for centuries, who cares? But tell me a story about those who fought, died, were murdered in the Colisseum, then I’m interested.

Jerome Bruner wrote something that has always stuck with me, and I think is so true of blogging:

Selfhood derives from the sense that one can initiate and carry out activities on one’s own. Even the simplest narratives are built around an agent-self as a protagonist. Any system of education or theory of pedagogy that diminishes the school’s role in nurturing its pupils’ self-esteem fails at one of its primary functions. Personhood implicates narrative.

For me, I am a hero, flawed, imperfect. You are reading the The Odyssey of MGuhlin, a voyager making his way in the world, learning, not from the multitude, but the ones I encounter. How can I not share that story when i write? Sometimes it is about living with my fear, sometimes about realizing the power, sometimes it is about hypocrisy, and sometimes it’s about surviving day to day. But that is MY narrative, and as a person, I definitely believe that I can initiate and carry out activities on my own. That is why I am a leader–I don’t wait for others. I begin moving, I commit, and then what happens….

Until one is committed, there is hesitancy…The moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves, too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events raising in one’s favor…unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance which no man could have dreamed would have come his way.–W.H. Murray, The Scottish Himalayan Expedition.

Who would have thought when I began writing that 300+ people would be reading those chronicles a few months later?

2) I write to transform my experiences. When I was in the teacher education program, a speaker said, “What story you tell yourself about a situation will determine what you feel. You control the stress.” These were powerful words. On the one hand, we are carried along the current, like a bark of wood, but if we say we are voyagers bound for an unseen shore, this bark our life, our sustenance and our health, then it’s different, isn’t it?

The act of creation embodied in this blog, in everything I write, are powerful antidotes to the poison I encounter in the wilderness of despair, of fear, and hypocrisy. The act of creation does not negate my own acts of despair, fear, and hypocrisy. Rather, it allows me to transform them, like the dragon in my favorite story of St. George and The Quest for the Holy Grail. (Click on the link, read the story…ok, here it is:

From my position high on the dragon’s back, I noticed that the dragon’s body was covered with old wounds. WHenever the dragon breathed forth fire to light the path in front of us, I noticed that the wounds glowed golden-red in the dark. When I asked about them, the dragon replied, “Oh, my friend, I have been slain a thousand times, but I have always arisen again. These old wounds are the source of my power and my insight. Our greatest and worst enemies are not the monsters who roam the forest or even wicked witches or evil wizards. No, it is our scars, our wounds, and old injuries that we must fear. As we journey through life we have all been injured–hurt by parents, brothers or sister, schoolmates, strangers, lovers, teachers. Each wound has the power to talk to us, you know. They speak, however, with crooked voices because of the scars.

All of us have wounds–old ones and new ones–and whenever the monster appears, when hell breaks loose, we know that our old wounds are talking guiding us. It is these wounds that must be confronted (Hays, 1986).)

Often I sit down at a computer and, unbidden, like a spring flowing, the words begin to come. In fact, that is the mental image I have of writing–a flowing spring, a well in the desert. Sometimes, that well is empty and dry, but the waters of the spring lurk beneath the sand and grit of everyday, endure beneath the searing sun.

I’m doing it now, the writing flowing from a spring. Do I know where? No, only that I derive peace from the act, a way of transforming the worst in me. The act of writing is an action, it is saying that I do not despair, that I do not fear, that I will be true to the Word. I seek to transform my life through my writing. That others read it, it is like a candle burning. I may expire, and if a little light should illuminate another’s path, then wonderful! But the fact is, the candle burns because it has been lit, not to banish the darkness.

3) Dare to contribute for you are beautiful as well. I often think that many of us are like the peacock in this story, but unlike the peacock in the story, we are afraid to speak up. Last month, a new blogger asked me–though not in so many words–how to get to be a successful blogger. The answer is simple, but the person wouldn’t have liked it. Maybe a story is in order. When I was in college studying the poetry of Alexander Pope, of Shellye, I felt a tremendous oppression.

The oppression was my own doing, of course. As I read the beautiful poetry, the prose of renown writers, slowly the fire inside me began to diminish. I asked myself, “How can anyone born today write as well as those people who lived so long ago?” This was my senior year of English. I set aside my poetry, and instead, began to find expression in strict formulaic writing. While I could never be like those writers, perhaps, I could enjoy myself within existing forms (e.g. reports, memos, letters). For me, I would ever be an amateur, writing for personal fun, never serious writing like the classical writers of the past.

Then, as I wrote with my students, writing poetry and prose, I realized that something wasn’t right. Sitting in a portable building, I began to write about them, about the work they were doing. Oh, it was a powerful experience. My first 3 pieces of writing were immediately picked up by editors and published. I awakened to the defiant power of writing for fun, even though I couldn’t write like Pope or Keats, I could put a few words together that would be of use, of interest to others.

I dared to contribute then, defiantly. I still encounter that feeling of despondency, of writing in spite of great thinkers. “Yes, I recognize your greatness,” my writing proclaims, “but while your song may be beautiful, so is mine…because it is I who sing it.” So, to be a successful blogger, you have to tap into who you are, and mean or nice, share who you are. That’s why when I write, you’ll find I’m in the story. When I see something, take Podnova for Linux, I am any one of the following: 1) An ignorant newbie to linux writing about how he solved a problem, recording it for the future so I won’t forget what I’ve learned along the way; 2) A bridge-builder who labors for those who come behind him; 3) A peacock who faces anger with truth; 4) A turkey who cannot control its temper.

4) It doesn’t matter what you write about, just tell the truth. I recently shared a cartoon that reads, “I have nothing to say…I say it regularly.” But that’s not true . What is true is that I have to share as much of the truth as I can tolerate, and then push it a bit. There are many things happening in the world today, much in our lives to be grateful for. And, there are also many things that try to sap the joy out of life. To deny either life, the priviledge of honesty, of transparency, of truth diminishes us. So, while I am not wise enough to be a soothsayer, I can strive to tell the truth in the hope that I may someday grow wise, or failing that, learn more. Blogging is about relationships, and I cannot imagine being less than truthful as possible. Yet, a million times, I am grateful for your forgiveness.

When I read what others have to write–and I read quite a bit, but shallowly like a rock skipping over the surface–I am compelled to write about my point of view on those experiences. While someone may be particularly erudite (there, you see? That’s the defiance, the thought I can do as well as the erudite author), I know that it does not represent the whole story…because I am a part of that story. It is important to speak truth to the universe, to tell it the truth about itself (if you can identify the title of the sci-fi book that came from, let me know, ok?).

In traditional publishing, it’s expected you be an expert before opening your mouth. Blogging academics…I think that’s just trying to elevate the account of wrestling with truth in our lives. Like “He Who Wrestles with God,” bloggers must wrestle with their ideas, their emotions, the world around them and bring order to it. We need to speak to that struggle, tell when we fail, when we succeed.

5) Sharing one’s appreciation of neat things found in the worldor in one’s heart. One of my favorite stories involves God hiding from humanity. The angels asked, “Where will you hide?” And, God answered, “I will hide in the one place my children won’t look…in their hearts.” I don’t remember where this story came from but it sticks with me. When playing hide and seek with my children, I always chose those places where they would not look…even though it was obvious and right in front of them (e.g. clean clothes pile, a lump of pillows on the floor, dirty clothes pile, immobile in the shadow). They would laugh with delight when they found me, and I pray that I find delight when I find His hiding places. It’s fun to share what you find with others and invite them to laugh.

SHARE MORE. That’s what it is all about…if only I’d known that high engagement encounters high resistance.

Bill Kerr has an interesting post over at his site. I’m not sure I understand it all…as a proponent of constructivist teaching in my youth, I came to understand teaching and learning a la constructivist approach as “To know is to know how to make.” But, it seems to me that in a connected world, this approach is insufficient. It’s not enough for me to know how to make.

It’s important that I know how to make with others across a distance, even if the collaborators are in different countries. BTW, this is one reason I think our schools won’t be able to keep up. Our schools are about teachers in classrooms doing their thing, albeit scripted and controlled by scope and sequence mandated by the District, which they interpreted from the State requisite knowledge and skills which will eventually be tested. Our teachers aren’t interested in reaching out to each other as classrooms…An altered, open re-configuration of the network of teacher-learners will yield rich, new perspectives runs into a few roadblocks:

Lots of teachers aren’t connected to the network

Lots of teachers don’t want to be connected to the network

Lots of teachers, even if connected to the network, have no idea how to connect their students

Lots of teachers who are connected learners have no way of enacting widespread educational reform at their campus, and/or their district.

While theories of human learning–behaviorism, constructivism, connectivism–make for nice blog discussion, I find that a part of me just wants to flick a switch and say, “You know, how the heck does any of this REALLY matter to a teacher in the trenches?” Then, I remember that it matters a whole heck of a lot. As bilingual/ESL teacher, believing in an -ism (constructivism in my case) gave me a sense of energy, passion, and general plan of attack to transform MY understanding of teaching and learning. It’s that process of transformation that is so darn critical, not what -ism you happen to subscribe to at a given time. The more I reflect on my early days as a teacher, later a facilitator of professional learning for teachers, and then architect of these types of experiences, I realize that it was the journey, the fervent desire to better understand teaching and learning that made me a good teacher…not the -ism I subscribed to.

My response to Bill Kerr follows, as I try to make sense of what he’s saying:

So, are you saying that while the -isms provide valuable insights into human learning, they are imperfect, undergo constant revision, and, as such, they only suffice as magnifying lens on a microscope? A way of understanding human learning?

What makes any -ism superior to another? Why should Siemen’s connectivism be any more than an exciting metaphor for human learning than constructivism? Is it only that one has been around longer than the other?

As we humanize machines, what it is to be human is explored more. I can be MORE human because a machine takes care of the drudgery of work.

Finally, how hard is it to debunk a learning theory? Learning theories seem to serve only insomuch as they help us get passionate about human learning and the possibility that we may be able to predict how people learn…but isn’t that process of learning individual? Shouldn’t any learning theory help us better enable people to learn individually? How can technology help us do that?

When we have children, we don’t want to tell them about our experiences, because if we told them the truth – the horror stories and the wasted time – we’re afraid they’ll use it as an excuse to fail. Besides, if you admitted the truth about your experiences, how could you justify putting them on the yellow bus every morning.

Admitting the truth about one’s experiences is tough work. When I make time to reflect on my past, my actions, the actions of others, I realize how flawed I am as a human being. It is an insight that enables me to empathize with others who find themselves in similar situations. What happened in school–or anywhere–happens with people. The question is, are these places that unleash our soul power, or do they heap chains on us? I like the idea of soul, of spirits in our classrooms and the transparency blogging brings…if you’re transparent, people know what to expect, can see whether you chained up, and your vulnerability isn’t something to be hidden at all costs. The courage of sharing your story, of being transparent, of taking the chains others put on you when you’re young, or you allow to be put on later, is powerful stuff.

Don’t despair. The stories you were told about the need to go through college, or particular sorts of college, have merit, but there is more to the whole picture than that. 50% of all prominent Americans were successful in school. What does that tell you about the other 50%?

Your ideas are valuable. Your feelings are worthwhile. Normality is overrated and misapplied. You are more important than the sum of your grades. You are not to blame for a poor fit with the schools. You are not to blame for learning the lessons the schools worked so hard to teach you – of your own inadequacy and failure. You are not a bad person now, and you were not then. You did not ever intend to cause pain through your non-performance of their work.

All this reminds of how high stakes tests are failing everyone who doesn’t conform to the system. We’re so busy telling everyone that this is the one road to success, we’ve shut down the the very engines of creativity that are now needed.

It’s as if the very quest to realize our humanity, to unleash the power of the soul, is being played out in our battle for schools and their purpose in our lives. We are immersed in a spiritual battle, waging war against ideas and worldviews that threaten to enslave us, to hold us back from fully achieving our humanity. “Don’t despair,” writes Josh Shaine. My goodness, how many others console themselves with those words besides Scott?

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12.

The newspaper has to learn what its real value is and that is, indeed, reporting and its editors have to stop defending raw numbers of bodies. They need to boil themselves down to their essence and they haven’t had the courage to do that yet.Source: Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine

When undergoing change, one has to commit to stripping down to the bare essentials, to finding out what is that really makes you tick…what is it of value that is worth keeping.

What is that I’m doing that makes a difference, and what doesn’t? Some have suggested that No Child Left Behind is really about stripping down to essentials, investing more money in our children. As ed-tech funding is threatened, zero’d out, I start to think that maybe is the time to strip to bare essentials, to find our essence as educators.

Here’s an excerpt from Carly Fiorina’s commencement address back in 2001. I like what Fiorina says, simply because it resonates with me as a recent 38 year old who’s just lost his father. It resonates because it reminds me that FEAR is what blocks our first steps in any venture, no matter how young or old, and that we can choose what our path is.

When you graduate from here, you exit with thousands of pages of personal text on which are inscribed beliefs and values shaped by years of education, family interactions, relationships, experiences. And buried within those thousands of pages is your personal truth, your essence. So, how do you distill your life down to its essence? You can begin by confronting your fears. I understand now, 25 years after that class: it is through a similar, personal distillation process that I have encountered my own fears, and mastered them.

Each time I encountered fear, each time I had another moment of “ah-hah,” I was getting closer to identifying my essence – my true heart, my true self. The first epiphany came in a moment of realization that I really did measure up. It was about conquering the fear of inadequacy.

So, as educators, what are the fears we need to confront? As educators, what is our true self? What are the choices we need to make? And, how long will it take us to start making them?

When I sat down in my first economics class at UCLA, the professor wrote on the blackboard all we would learn, in really big letters:

SCARCITY

I’ve been blogging for five years as of this month, and here’s what I’ve learned:

ABUNDANCE

I have discovered I have a lot to give. And when I give, I notice others give more. Some of them I’ve formed relationships with, and trust opens giving, but I have also learned to trust strangers to share in abundance. Life is iterative, markets are not transactions and scarcity of attention is false. Our learnings compound abundance and there may be no limit to what we can produce.

Recently, there was some “controversy” about the K-12 Online Conference. In a follow-up post, Tom Hoffman clarifies that he wants people to describe the edublogosphere accurately and display some depth of knowledge and experience about both education and technology. While I agree with his approach, I again refer to Jeff Jarvis’ statement. He’s referring to Stephen’s point about edubloggers who…

…will now be the voices of our discipline… These voices, who are already fluffing it up, emptying it of substance, adding flash….

Scarcity vs Abundance. The power of relationships and conversations to learn from each other, to share ideas, to be wrong in a public setting–and one hopes, a friendly one–is always tempered by the possibility of fluff, lack of substance, and flash. The edublogosphere is still developing, ever evolving as new voices are added to the mix. Simply because my voice is here, or there, that does not mean that my voice will remain as one of the dominant ones. In fact, when I consider the diverse abundance, the many people that GIVE MORE than I ever have, I’m shocked that anyone would think that it was “dominant” or that substance was dribbling away because of my puny effort…as if abundance of thought could disappear in the face of my assertions. Perhaps, that’s the way it was in the past….

I’m reminded of a quote that my father drilled into me, and one that I hope I have shared with my children. “Education is the one thing they can’t take away from you.” There’s so much unsaid in that statement…that someone is trying to take things away from you, that the only thing that endures is what you carry in your head.

Like a flawed gemstone, precious because of who gave it to us rather than its inherent worth, I carry that quote around. Maybe, just maybe, the only way to keep what you have today is to give that education away. Trade it in constantly, like a 7 year old trading Pokemon cards.

What remains after the trading is a quiet dignity, what comes of being educated and engaged with the world.

Let the voices of the edublogosphere resound, let mine be drowned out. What I have to say remains, buried, thrown away, discarded, forgotten, unimportant, without flash. I decide if it has substance and whether it sustains me. Learnings compound abundance, writes Ross, and there’s no limit to what I can produce.

What should my stated goal or objective be if technology integration isn’t possible in today’s K-12 environment and I lack the staff needed to impact every campus?

How do I focus the school district’s goals to include technology at a deep level, rather than just technology for technology’s sake?

How do I build capacity to ensure a school’s plans or goals are “good” ones? What’s “good?”

How do I deal with the lack of knowledge and therefore leadership that comes from other district administrators where technology is concerned?

I’m not sure I’m even asking the right questions but I’m grateful to the challenges shared. I do know that I have to dig deeper, to find the uncomfortable questions that my mind is sliding over, ignoring for self-preservation. Only by trying to answer those questions will I understand the real problem(s). In my reading over the last few days, I’ve seen the following:

For most schools technology integration is optional. So I am supporting an optional program. I know it’s been said before but: As long as teachers have the option to integrate technology, some will opt not to. Since computers first started showing up in schools it was optional. Some teachers used the computer labs others didn’t. I think we set a standard why back when of technology being optional. Now we are faced with the reality that as a system, education views technology integration as optional.Source: Jeff Utecht, The Thinking Stick

Optional technology use? We are supporting a dream, a vision that was popularized by vendors, pundits, and high priced keynote speakers. We’re still in search of the high tech, high touch. The reality? The reality is that schools don’t see technology as optional. Rather, it is irrelevant…whether the laminating machine works is a more relevant concern. Maybe that’s splitting hairs, but I see irrelevant as much worse than optional. Optional implies that technology might be used if the teacher chooses, that it has some worth. Irrelevant says that there is no worth, whether you choose to use it or not. I’m often fearful that the best I can do seldom impacts what happens in the classroom.

I want to grapple with these questions, I want someone to pick at the scabs and rip them off, to dig into the guts of the turkey, fighting off the revulsion, and doing what needs to be done. I’m almost there. When Scott writes the following, I realize that I am this person he’s describing:

Here’s the bad news: with the exception of the assistant superintendents and/or those few principals or superintendents who are the technology leaders in their organizations, nearly all of the rest of these people probably have no leadership training…here are reasons that we require leadership training for our formal leaders – they have to do with learning how to effectively facilitate change, provide appropriate support, mobilize stakeholder buy-in and involvement, operate within political and legal parameters, etc. One of the reasons that technology is marginalized and viewed as a non-essential component of most K-12 school systems is because the vast majority of our de facto technology leaders lack the background training and knowledge to effectively lead, advocate, make change, garner buy-in, and so on. All they have is whatever they’ve gained through the hard knocks of day-to-day experience and we all know how variable that can be.Source: Scott, McCleod, Dangerously Irrelevant

This is right on target. I have all the questions, but how does the tail (ed-tech) wag the dog? Better yet, BECOME the dog? What solutions work for you as an ed-tech administrator? After all, being a transition techie is fine and good but it’s always in recognition that your work is irrelevant.

“Through me the way into the suffering city,Through me the way to the eternal pain,Through me the way that runs among the lost.Justice urged on my high artificer;My maker was divine authority,The highest wisdom, and the primal love.Before me nothing but eternal things were made,And I endure eternally.Abandon every hope, ye who enter here.”

Of course, I didn’t know you could take a “test” and find out to which circle of hell you would be consigned to. However, there is one available. My results appear at the bottom of this entry.

…high school is organized into concentric circles of despair and Sisyphean drudgery which align quite nicely with the Nine Circles of Hell our friend and eternal optimist Dante Alighieri described so fully.

I encourage you to read it…fascinating.

As to where I would end up? Pretty darn scary questions that caused some introspection.

PurgatoryYou have escaped damnation and made it to Purgatory, a place where the dew of repentance washes off the stain of sin and girds the spirit with humility. Through contrition, confession, and satisfaction by works of righteousness, you must make your way up the mountain. As the sins are cleansed from your soul, you will be illuminated by the Sun of Divine Grace, and you will join other souls, smiling and happy, upon the summit of this mountain. Before long you will know the joys of Paradise as you ascend to the ethereal realm of Heaven.Read Results here.

I’m reading this book by Patrick Lencioni…fascinating story and the points it make are right in line with Robert Quinn’s stuff on Change the World and Deep Change. However, Lencioni gets to the point more quickly and less words. How dooes this apply to our work in Ed-Tech? Something worth exploring for the future…in the meantime, here are my notes.

Temptation #1: Being more interested in protecting your career status than you are in making sure your company achieves results.

Advice: Make results the most important measure of personal success.

Temptation #2: Wanting to be popular with your direct reports instead of holding them accountable.

Advice: Work for the long-term respect of your direct reports, not for their affection. View them as key employees who must deliver on their commitments if the company is to produce predictable results.

Temptation #3: Ensure that your decisions are correct.

Advice: Make clarity more important than accuracy…your people will learn more if you take decisive action than if you always wait for more info. It is your job (as CEO) to risk being wrong.

Temptation #4: The desire for harmony.

Advice: Tolerate discord.

Temptation #5: The desire for invulnerability.

Advice: Actively encourage your people to challenge your ideas…don’t be afraid to be vulnerable and trust them with your career/reputation and ego.

My first exposure to the Jesuit order was in the movie Shogun, which was based on the book by James Clavell. I was fascinating by the priestly order that appeared to have military background. So, I investigated a bit and found out about Ignacio de Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits. There was something attractive about the Jesuit order, the soldier of God.

Having subscribed to Wikipedia’s RSS feed a few weeks ago, a host of fascinating facts have come into my aggregator. Today’s was St. Ignacio de Loyola. I found the history interesting, but this assertion caught my attention:

He then developed a philosophy for the Church, which was built on faith. For instance, if the Church said something was white, you regarded it as white, even though you thought it was black. He encouraged people to trust the Church, instead of relying on his/her own insight.

There are modern parallels to Ignacio’s attitude. Of course, this religiousity–faith rather than Faith–isn’t limited to one, universal church any longer. I found listening to Colin McGinn ( interviewed by Bill Moyers) captivating:

It’s hard to prove that a unicorn doesn’t exist, especially hard to prove that God doesn’t exist, because God just by definition is outside of space and time.

As a believer, I find Colin’s objections to religion valid. Let me say that again. As a Christian believer, I find Colin’s points about RELIGION valid and worthwhile–and disagree only at the point of atheism. I do not believe that Ignacio was right…in fact, i believe that I must work towards the truth at all costs and its realization in my life. It is a powerful commitment, one that I awaken to every day, but the second part of that is frightening.

That said, I do not believe that realizing truth in life means legislating Christian values in our government, requiring an army of young conservatives and believers seeing black acts as white and good. I’ve written about some of the problems I have with the conservative frame–as characterized by George Lakoff in “Don’t Think of an Elephant “–and found this quote from Mary Gordon to be representative of my concerns:

And it seems vulnerable to me on several different fronts because I think there are two major narratives in the world, the narrative of fundamentalism and the narrative of consumerism. And I think that what I value is threatened by two opposing forces. One, the fundamentalist force, which wants to censor doubt, censor questioning.

And one which wants to make everything about money. And one of the most disturbing phenomena in the world as I experience it now is that everything seems to be about money. What can be commodified, what can be sold. The notion that there’s never enough money. That greed seems to be okay. That the value of an artistic or a literary production is how many mega bucks it makes. That the value of a vocation seems to be gone. It’s what can you do that would make money. And so, I feel that these two narratives which intertwine in some poisonous way that I don’t quite understand, both of them make me feel very vulnerable.

But, what gives rise to this type of fundamentalism or consumerism? Fundamentalism is the ultimate despair…it is the belief that we must censor doubt, censor questioning, censor everything (e.g. DOPA) because the world is screwed up so bad. It’s not so far from Osama bin Laden’s beliefs, according to Mary Gordon:

Somebody was telling me about young girls from very good schools who will photograph each other having sex, and put it on the Internet, so that people can, you know, see them, access them having sex. Thirteen, fourteen year old girls are doing that. And I see something like that, and it makes me despair. And I think there is something so wrong with this culture that, wipe it out. Start from– start from zero. It’s too corrupt.

You have only to do a search on the Web to find examples from all over ( Example 1 | Example 2 | Example 3 | Example 4). The answer to all these points is education, but that answer isn’t coming fast enough…even if we had the opportunity to actually teach about it, which we often do not because the focus is elsewhere (e.g. high stakes testing). It means that we will find ourselves among those who are fundamentalist, or focused on making money. Education is not powerful enough in the short term because education today lacks the passion and relevance of real life. Fundamentalism can generate anger, hate, and contempt…it can help people feel superior to others. In short, I know it makes me feel in control as righteous anger courses through my veins. And, when the anger is gone, nothing is left but the slow realization that things weren’t so cut and dried.

What’s the answer? Commit to truth, commit to making it real in your life. And…have faith. Believe you are powerful beyond measure.